If you thought we’d heard the last of the Deflategate saga, think again. The ball-tampering affair that seemed to have had the life sucked out of it was given more air on Thursday after judges in Manhattan found that “evidence of ball-tampering is compelling if not overwhelming” – and left the door open for Tom Brady’s suspension to be reinstated.

The NFL was in court to convince the second circuit that Brady’s four-game suspension should be upheld. Last year, the NFL was roiled by controversy after footballs were found to have been tampered with during the Patriots’ 45-7 victory over the Colts in the AFC Championship game.

Commissioner Roger Goodell concluded that Brady – although he had not deflated the balls himself – was at least aware of the ball-tampering, and had interfered with the subsequent investigation. He handed down a suspension, but Brady and the players’ union appealed against what they felt was a draconian punishment, and the ban was overturned in August.

Free to play, Brady starred for the Patriots as they again reached the AFC Championship game, where they lost to Denver.

In front of a three-judge panel on Thursday, the NFL argued that Goodell was within his rights to impose the four-game ban and fine the Patriots for conduct “detrimental” to the game. The NFL said Judge Richard Berman applied the law incorrectly when he overturned Brady’s suspension.

Tom Brady's mistake was to fight an NFL commissioner obsessed with PR

Read more

The judges gave lawyers for the players’ union a tough time at the hearing on Thursday. Judge Denny Chin said at one point: “The evidence of ball tampering is compelling if not overwhelming.”

Judge Barrington Parker, on the issue of Brady destroying his cell phone during the NFL’s investigation, said he did not believe the Patriots quarterback. “Mr Brady’s explanation of that made no sense whatsoever,” Parker said.

The appeals court did not immediately rule and a decision may be weeks away.

All three judges put Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney for the players’ union, on the defensive, finding multiple reasons why Goodell acted appropriately when he imposed the suspension. But they also questioned Paul Clement, the attorney for the NFL, on why the simple act of deflating footballs warranted such a severe suspension.